Chapman v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 17 January 1891
• Citation: 15 S.W. 50
• Parties: CHAPMAN v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

15 S.W. 50

CHAPMAN v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 17, 1891

Appeal from circuit court, Henderson county.

John Young Brown, for appellant.

John F Lockett and P. W. Hardin, for appellee.

HOLT C.J.

The testimony in this case shows that the appellant, George W Chapman, employed the deceased, Dan Jewell, to paint his house at an agreed price, the cost of the paint to be deducted, as the appellant was to buy it. The deceased became dissatisfied while engaged at the work, probably because he found it was not likely to prove a paying job, and on the day of the tragedy left the work, telling his hand to also quit after he did certain work, and to bring away with him the paints. The appellant refused to let the hand take them. The latter left, and reported the refusal to the deceased. He said, with an oath, that he would "go down there and straighten him out." Arriving there, he went to a rear door, where some angry words passed between him and the appellant. Finally, the deceased picked up a small pot of paint, worth not over 25 cents, the appellant having put away all but it, and started away, going around the house to the front gate. The appellant ran through his house, getting his pistol as he did so, and arriving first at the gate he placed his back to it, thus facing the deceased. As the latter tried to pass him, he told him to put down the paint, and put out his left hand to stop him, holding the pistol in his right hand, and down at his side. The deceased probably tried a second time to pass out, but the appellant stopped him. Angry words passed. The deceased put down the pot of paint, and grabbed the appellant. A scuffle followed, resulting in their falling to the ground, and then the appellant shot Jewell. His death resulted. He was unarmed. The appellant was indicted for murder, but convicted of manslaughter only, and sentenced to the penitentiary for four years. He asks a reversal upon the single ground that the jury were misinstructed.

Proper instructions were given as to murder, manslaughter, and self-defense. The jury were then told, in substance, in the fourth instruction, that if the parties got into a dispute about the ownership of paint, which both claimed, and the appellant armed himself, with the intention to kill Jewell if necessary to prevent him from taking away the paint, and forbade him doing so, and prevented his leaving, thus provoking a difficulty, in which he purposely shot Jewell then they should find him guilty of murder, although he was at the time of the shooting in danger of great bodily harm at the hands of Jewell; but guilty of manslaughter only, if he armed himself only to intimidate Jewell, to cause him to give up the paint, and provoked the difficulty for this purpose. The fifth instruction informed them that if the...